Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, on admission. Allured by a Scheme known as ‘Unique Teak Offer’, respondent made investment of Rs. 2,000/- with petitioner company for 2 (two) units i.e. for two Teak trees, in the year 1992 in expectation of getting Rs. 50,000/-, on maturity period of twenty years. Allotment advice was sent by petitioner company on 24.01.1992 and a Certificate too, was issued to respondent. Since there was no expected growth of plants, respondent was given liberty by petitioner company to withdraw from their scheme, in event of which, deposit made by her shall be refunded. As respondent lost her original certificate issued by petitioner company, she moved latter for issuance of ‘Duplicate Certificate’ which followed another communication issued by petitioner extending maturity period of deposit from year 2012 to 2042 i.e. period of fifty years from date of launching Scheme. Aggrieved with extension of maturity period, a consumer complaint was filed by respondent. Complaint was resisted by petitioner before fora below holding that there being no expected growth of plants, maturity period had to be extended, though giving option to investors to get refund of deposit, in case they were not willing to wait for fifty years. District Forum, having accepted complaint, on consideration of pleadings of parties, saddled petitioner company to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along-with interest @ 9% p.a. Cost of Rs. 1,000/- too was awarded. Appeal too, preferred by petitioner company did not find favour with State Commission. Though contentions were raised on behalf of petitioner company also about belated filing of complaint, we find that cause of action having arisen only after extension of maturity period to deposit made by company, filing of complaint was well within prescribed period of limitation. It was quite unfair on part of company to walk out of contract unilaterally, expecting maturity paid without consent of other party to the contract. Ground taken by company that as there was no provision in Scheme for award of interest, Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to grant compensation or interest, does not impress us as in case of deficiency/negligence, compensation/ interest are payable to neutralize effecting loss or injury. There are yet other features in the episode. Filing a Xerox-copy of order passed by State Commission in FA 123/06 preferred by Bandlamudi Siva Parvathi, respondent herein, it is brought to our notice that State Commission had enhanced compensation payable to complainants from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of complaint. We have not been apprised by either of the parties as to whether revision has been preferred by aggrieved party against aforesaid finding of State Commission. Since no revision has been preferred by complainant against finding of State Commission in FA 1030/2005 for enhancement of compensation, that was awarded by District Forum and affirmed by State Commission, we have no option to enhance compensation. Having taken notice of finding of State Commission in FA 123/06, however, we would like to quantify compensation payable to complainant to Rs. 40,000/- instead of awarding interest thereon. Award of State Commission is modified accordingly and revision petition is disposed of in above terms, with no order as to cost.